SCOTUS confirms independence by refusing to stop Trump’s sentencing

On Wednesday, lawyers for President-elect Donald Trump urged to the US Supreme Court to block his sentencing in New York for falsifying business records to conceal his 2016 hush payment to porn star Stormy Daniels. Todd Blanche, whom Trump plans appoint as his deputy attorney general, and D. John Sauer, Trump’s prosecutor choose for attorney general, warned that “forcing President Trump to prepare for a criminal sentencing in a felony case as he prepares to lead the free world as president of the United States in less than two weeks imposes an intolerable and unconstitutional burden on him.” that undermines “national security and vital interests.”

Most judges were unimpressed by that argument. in an unsigned order issued Thursday afternoon, declined to intervene in the New York case, saying that “the burden the ruling will place on the president-elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of ‘unconditional release’ after a brief virtual hearing.”

Since that phrase is equivalent to no punishment at all and Trump can still appeal his 34 felony convictions, the practical consequences of that order are in fact “relatively insubstantial.” But the decision confirms what should have been clear from Trump’s record on the Supreme Court: Although six of the nine justices are Republican appointees, including three nominated by Trump himself, that does not mean he can count on the Court to pronounce in your favor. Even the Court’s harshest critics from the left tend to be grateful for that fact during Trump’s second term, especially in light of his authoritarian impulses and his threats deploy his powers against his political opponents.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh said they would have granted Trump’s request for a stay. But the majority included Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, as well as the three justices nominated by Democrats.

That alignment, New York Times Journalist Adam Liptak. arguesIt’s further evidence of Barrett’s “independent streak,” which he said was also evident last summer at Trump against the United States and Fischer v. United States. But these examples are more complicated than Liptak suggests.

In the first case, the majority endorsed a broad view of presidential immunity from prosecution for “official acts,” casting doubt on whether Trump could be prosecuted for attempting to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election. partial attendance, Barrett took a narrower view of presidential immunity that would give prosecutors more leeway to charge a former president based on allegedly official conduct. But the majority opinion was written by Roberts, who in other cases has had no qualms about speaking out against Trump.

In fishermaninvolving a Capitol rioter charged with obstructing an official proceeding, Roberts majority opinion saying A defendant can be convicted of that offense only if he “impaired the availability or completeness for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects” or “other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so.” That ruling also helped Trump, who had been accused of obstructing an official proceeding in the federal election interference case.

in a dissent Along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Barrett disagreed with the majority reading of the statute. But Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, Biden’s nominee, united the majority opinion and wrote a concurrencewhich was consistent with civil liberties advocates’ concerns about due process and fair notice.

Liptak also mentions Trump vs. Andersonthe March 2024 case in which the Court said states could not exclude Trump from the 2020 presidential ballot as an insurrectionist under the 14th Amendment. But although the justices were divided on the basis of that decision, they were unanimous in concluding that state officials did not have that power.

Those three decisions, Liptak says, “undermined the reputation he (Roberts) had built over nearly two decades as an institutionalist seeking to defend his court against accusations that it is warped by politics.” But the assumption that any decision favoring Trump must be “warped by politics” is neither fair nor reasonable, as illustrated by Jackson’s position in fisherman and the unanimous result in Trump vs. Anderson. By the same logic, Democratic-appointed judges must be motivated by partisan considerations every time they govern. against Triumph.

Judges who do what they are supposed to do by interpreting and applying the law according to politically neutral principles are forced to agree with Trump in some cases and disagree with him in others. And given Trump’s repeatedly demonstrated disregard for legal and constitutional constraints, one would expect the Court to rule against him more often than not, which is what happened during his first term.

“In his first administration,” Liptak notes, Trump “did poorly at the Supreme Court in signed decisions in orally argued cases in which the United States, an executive department, an independent agency, or the president himself were a party, with only 42 prevailing. percent”. time, the lowest rate since at least the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. In other words, a fundamentally conservative court, now with a majority of six Republican-appointed justices that includes three appointed by Trump himself, has not been particularly receptive. To their arguments, the Biden administration, on the contrary, has been on the winning side 54. percent of the time.”

Over the last century, every president has done substantially better on the Supreme Court than Trump, with success rates ranging from 52 percent (Barack Obama) to 75 percent (Ronald Reagan). They have typically prevailed more than 60 percent of the time.

Trump’s broader judicial record during his first term was even worse. When analyzing the results of federal cases involving actions by the Trump agency from 2017 to the end of his administration, the Institute for Political Integrity at New York University School of Law found that the government failed 78 percent of the time.

Trump’s losses at the Supreme Court included his 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton Countywhich held that federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Roberts and four other justices.

Another memorable loss was the Court’s 2019 decision in Trump v. Mazarswhich refused Trump’s attempt to block a state subpoena for his tax returns. The majority included two Trump nominees, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, whose “betrayal” was alleged enraged him. “In our system of government, as this Court has often stated, no one is above the law,” Kavanaugh wrote in a concurrent vote to which Gorsuch joined. “That principle applies, of course, to a president.”

Later that year, Trump went public with his anger at the Supreme Court after it refused to hear two cases challenging the result of the 2020 election. He he complained that the justices, including Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, “had simply ‘cowered’ and did not want to rule on the merits.” Two weeks later, Trump called The magistrates are “totally incompetent and weak”, as well as cowards. By refusing to consider their “absolute PROOF” of “massive voter fraud,” he said, they effectively endorsed “corrupt elections,” meaning “we have no country!”

Trump reiterated that complaint during his pre-riot “stop the steal” speech on January 6, 2021. “I’m not happy with the Supreme Court,” he said. said his supporters. “They love to rule against me.”

The hits kept coming after Trump left office. Last June in Garland v. Cargillthe supreme court refused Trump’s unilateral ban on firearms, ruling that it exceeded the statutory authority of federal gun regulators. While Trump’s left-wing opponents may have been displeased by the outcome, the ruling vindicated the separation of powers and the rule of law, principles that progressive critics of the surge action decision will be eager to defend for the next four years. years.

Similarly, the Supreme Court’s June 2024 decision repudiation of the Chevron This doctrine caused much consternation on the left, but it may facilitate challenges to Trump’s second-term policies. According to that doctrine, which the Court disavowed in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Judges delegated interpretations of “ambiguous” laws to agencies as long as the interpretations were “permissible” or “reasonable.”

As critics of bright parrot In his view, the decision would surely benefit the rich and powerful by blocking regulations meant to protect the public. But as Gorsuch pointed out in that case, the Chevron The doctrine imposed a greater burden on common people confronted by bureaucrats who had the power to invent their own authority. Anyone worried about what Trump might do during his second term should be glad that his agencies no longer have that license.

Although it did not directly involve Trump, the Court’s July 2024 decision decision in Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxtonthat addressed challenges to state laws restricting content moderation by social media platforms, didn’t go his way. Contrary to Trump’s view that such laws protect free speech, Kagan’s majority opinion, joined by Roberts and Barrett, made it clear that “government efforts to alter an edited compilation of third-party speech are subject to judicial review to determine compliance with the First Amendment.” That position is clearly at odds with Trump’s desire to override private moderation decisions, as exemplified by the agenda of his election to head the Federal Communications Commission.

In another pair of social media cases last March, the Court unanimously heldIn Barrett’s view, public officials may be violating the First Amendment when they selectively block critics on platforms like Facebook. That was the same question Trump raised when tried to block dissident voices on Twitter during his first term.

“Trump has made clear that in the future he will be even less concerned about upholding the Constitution and federal law than he was the last time he was in the White House,” said Brianne Gorod, an attorney at the Constitutional Accountability Center. said NBC News after the election, “so the courts, including the Supreme Court, are warned that their role as a vital check on our constitutional system will be tested.” Taken together, the Court’s previous decisions suggest that it will not shirk that responsibility.